Visa reciprocity

Visa reciprocity is practiced by many countries, but is it a desirable policy?

Let’s examine three scenarios:

1. Travel between democracies
2. Travel between a democracy and an authoritarian regime
3. Free trade vs tariffs

Travel between democracies

Here are our rules to generate our table:

• Implementing a visa on another democracy will reduce your utility, but also the utility of the nationality being taxed.
• If a visa is implemented on my nationality, my country is harmed. Lose one point.
• If my country implements a visa on a nationality from another democracy, my country is harmed. Lose one point.

	Open border	Visa-free	eVisa, no appointment	Visa with appointment	Travel ban
Open border	10,10	9,9	8,8	7,7	6,6
Visa-free	9,9	8,8	7,7	6,6	5,5
eVisa, no appointment	8,8	7,7	6,6	5,5	4,4
Visa with appointment	7,7	6,6	5,5	4,4	3,3
Travel ban	6,6	5,5	4,4	3,3	2,2

This table shows that for maximizing quality of government and economic well-being the mutual open border is the ideal situation for two democracies.

We also find that seeking out visa reciprocity by increasing travel restrictions will always harm your country. Visa reciprocity is not a desirable policy.

Our only equilibrium is open borders. So its not a surprise this has become the default.

Diplomacy is an effective tool at maximizing the well-being of your country.

Travel between a democracy and an authoritarian regime

There are two possible scenarios, depending on what the authoritarian regime values. This is going to assume the authoritarian regime wants more travel freedom for their spies in our first scenario.

Rules:

• The authoritarian regime will send spies and terrorists into the democracy. The democracy is harmed if nefarious actors from the authoritarian state travel to the democracy without a visa. Democracy gains one point and authoritarian loses one point with each more restrictive visa short of a travel ban on the authoritarian subjects.
• The authoritarian state benefits from restricting travel freedom on the democracy to prevent the spreading of ideas counter to their ideology. But a full travel ban prevents the flow of money so it is worse than an open border. The authoritarian state gains one point with higher visa restriction on democratic citizens while the democracy loses one point because democracies always benefit from more travel freedom for their citizens.
• Increase visas on democracy
  • Democracy is harmed because it reduces diplomatic influence and harms citizens
  • Authoritarian regime benefits because it reduces the infiltration of liberal ideas to their citizens
• Increase visas on dictatorship
  • Democracy benefits because it slows the flow of spies, terrorists, and assassins
  • Authoritarian regime is harmed because it slows the flows of spies, terrorists, and assassins

	Open border on democracy	Visa-free	eVisa, no appointment	Visa with appointment	Travel ban on democracy
Open border on dictatorship	0,5	-1,6	-2,7	-3,8	-4,0
Visa-free	1,4	0,5	-1,6	-2,7	-3,-1
eVisa, no appointment	2,3	1,4	0,5	-1,6	-2,-2
Visa with appointment	3,2	2,3	1,4	0,5	-1,-3
Travel ban on dictatorship	-1,-1	-2,-3	-3,-4	-4,-5	-5,-6

Democracy (row), authoritarian (column)

The equilibrium is for both countries to impose visas on each other.

In this scenario, visa reciprocity is again not a desirable policy for either party. The democracy wants more restrictions short of a travel ban on the authoritarian regime for safety reasons, while the authoritarian regime wants more restrictions short of a travel ban on the democracy for propaganda reasons. However, these two are at odds with each other. But both are going to move towards the visa policy for the other, leading to the most desirable possible outcome for themselves at the expense of the other.

So if the democracy chose to lighten visas on the authoritarian regime in order to attempt to indoctrinate the subjects of the dictatorship with the false illusion of capitalism (jk) then they are not going to see reciprocity in return. But the threat of spies is so great that the democracy will not do this.

However, what if the authoritarian regime makes a different calculation and wants less travel freedom for themselves in order to prevent their citizens from being indoctrinated with liberalism? This makes a revised rule set:

• Increased restrictions on democratic citizens
  • Democracy loses a point because the citizens are harmed.
  • Authoritarian regime gains a point to prevent infiltration of liberal ideology. They don’t want a full travel ban.
• Increased restrictions on authoritarian subjects
  • Democracy gains a point, but they don’t want a full travel ban.
  • Authoritarian regime gains a point to prevent their subjects from fleeing.

	Open border on democracy	Visa-free	eVisa, no appointment	Visa with appointment	Travel ban on democracy
Open border on dictatorship	0,0	-1,1	-2,2	-3,3	-4,-1
Visa-free	1,1	0,2	-1,3	-2,4	-3,-2
eVisa, no appointment	2,2	1,3	0,4	-1,5	-2,-3
Visa with appointment	3,3	2,4	1,5	0,6	-1,-4
Travel ban on dictatorship	-1,4	-2,5	-3,6	-4,7	-5,-5

Democracy (row), authoritarian (column)

The outcome does not change, the mutual visa is still where we end up, since both countries want to restrict travel from the other country, albeit for different reasons.

This demonstrates that mutual visa policy between a democracy and a dictatorship can occur for two distinct justifications from the perspective of the dictatorship, leading to the same outcome.

Free trade vs Tariffs

Rules:

• I benefit if my exports are tariff free
• I also benefit if my imports are tariff free

	Free trade on row	Tariff on row
Free trade on column	1,1	0,0
Tariff on column	0,0	-1,-1

This is in terms of pure economic maximization. Reciprocity does not make sense. So even if another country starts hitting you with tariffs, do not hit back.

Tariffs should only be used in cases like the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Diplomacy is a more effective tool than slamming tariffs on each other.